Assessment authorization requires recorded satisfaction; contingent delegation to the assessing officer is invalid and cannot sustain assessment.

An assessment authorization based on audit material is invalid unless the competent authority independently applies its mind and records satisfaction before initiating proceedings. A blanket or contingent authorization that leaves the decision to the assessing officer does not satisfy the statutory requirement and cannot sustain the resulting assessment. On that basis, the assessment order and the appellate rejection were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after proper opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order could stand when the authorization to assess was issued contingently without the competent authority recording satisfaction on the audit report.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment turned on the nature of the authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner for proceeding against specified VAT dealers. The Court accepted that, on the governing legal position, the discretion to decide whether assessment proceedings should be initiated had to be exercised by the competent authority after application of mind to the audit material and recording of satisfaction. A blanket or contingent authorization that merely left the decision to the assessing officer was not a valid exercise of that power.

Conclusion: The authorization was invalid and the assessment order could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and the appellate rejection were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording proper opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires the competent authority to be satisfied on the basis of the audit material before authorizing assessment, that satisfaction must be independently formed and recorded; a contingent delegation of the decision to assess is invalid.

---